welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

prop 8 overturned
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


catharsis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vox Raucus



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 1252
Location: At the Hundredth Meridian

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lasairfiona wrote:
I'm throwing a party!

What makes me sad is when I scroll through my friend list, not enough of them would respond favorably to me going "EEEEEEEE PROP 8 IS OVERTURNED!!!!!"


*Vox likes this*
_________________
The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unnamed?



Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found an interesting piece on how some non/semi-non bigots might have been in favor of proposition 8. It's an interesting read and I think it's a reasonably feasible look at what many people on the other side really think.


Most of the material comes from a book, so many of you might already be familiar with this thesis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No one at work is even mentioning this. Kinda feels like it's against etiquette to get into anything political. Which believe me, I'm perfectly fine with!
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unnamed? wrote:
I found an interesting piece on how some non/semi-non bigots might have been in favor of proposition 8. It's an interesting read and I think it's a reasonably feasible look at what many people on the other side really think.

Bit of a catch-22. I suspect the majority of those who would choose to frame the argument in those terms disagree with prop 8, and I have a hard time accepting it as a reasonable justification for the beliefs of those who are themselves incapable of making the "norm" argument explicit. Yes, there are non-bigoted arguments against same-sex marriage, but they are A) the vanishingly small exception rather than the norm, and B) nevertheless innately antithetical to the constitutional premise of equal protection under the law. It opens perfectly acceptable arguments for discrimination against any subset of people, and it certainly doesn't make me feel better about those making it... because they are ostensibly smart enough to know better.

Everyone is well motivated from their own point of view.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12132
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam the Eagle wrote:
There is a huge groundwork of explaination/teaching to do.

The anti-gays are already well aware of those efforts. One of the Yes on Prop. 8 commercials cited at the trial invokes with the idea of educating children to be tolerant of homosexuality. Can't have that, can we? Our children must remain intolerant! Teaching children that gay marriage is acceptable will obviously turn our children gay, too! I WANNA MARRY A PRINCESS!

Unnamed? wrote:
I found an interesting piece on how some non/semi-non bigots might have been in favor of proposition 8. It's an interesting read and I think it's a reasonably feasible look at what many people on the other side really think.

Yeah, the rhetoric of keeping "traditional families" around in the face of the Progressives revising culture willy-nilly. That all came out at the trial as well, and it's part of what was talked about earlier where the counsel for the Prop. 8 side admitted he didn't know how such a thing could happen.
Quote:
At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption that “the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Doc #228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don’t know.” Id at 23.

None of their experts could establish even a theoretical mechanism linking the legalization of same-sex marriage and the decline of heterosexual marriages, even if their arguments hadn't been thrown out.
So while I think there is something to this Red Families idea about sex/marriage/creating adults, I don't think that's enough to displace the element of bigotry as the primary motivation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Unnamed?



Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not claiming at all that this opposition to gay marriage is even remotely defensible. I just posted the article because I think it's an interesting way of looking at diverging social views of marriage. I hadn't really before framed it as anything more than a simple form of "us vs. the bigots", perhaps because I don't really have a personal investment in the outcome of prop. 8 and didn't think very deeply about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12132
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We appreciate you posting it, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not too familiar with US law, but this thing about facts looks important.

Quote:
Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come.


Am I right in thinking that, while they can still be overturned, these are pretty much law now?
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you're *really* worried about procreation, why 1) allow men and women past their fertile years to marry people those who are not, and 2) not allow polygamy?

Also, laughing so much at Mike Purdy, spokesman for the Mormons, saying, "Marriage between a man and woman is the bedrock of society." Doesn't he mean "marriage between a man and women is the bedrock of society?" At least if they're going by their traditional views of marriage, anyway...
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

so --
how long before some christocon teabag fascist arms up and "protests" somebody... for the children

i say they can't keep it in their holsters until election day
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willem wrote:
Am I right in thinking that, while they can still be overturned, these are pretty much law now?


In that jurisdiction, those points have some precedent. However, while the striking down of prop 8 is binding unless overturned, and would prohibit similar laws (in light of a very quick strike down if passed), the actual facts may be found differently in a different case if they experts are different or the judge feels differently. So... those are cool, and yeah, it's persuasive, but there's not much weight to them; they're just in the category of "this is why I made my decision," instead of "this is my decision, which must be obeyed."
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12132
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
so --
how long before some christocon teabag fascist arms up and "protests" somebody... for the children

i say they can't keep it in their holsters until election day

I honestly don't think this will come to violence. As much as homosexuals may be the target of prejudice, there just doesn't seem like enough actual "menace" to warrant assault because of this particular ruling.

Wish I could say the same for that decision about the Islamic youth center in NYC. Everybody knows Muslims are terrorists trying to kill Americans, after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Major Tom wrote:
so --
how long before some christocon teabag fascist arms up and "protests" somebody... for the children

i say they can't keep it in their holsters until election day

I honestly don't think this will come to violence. As much as homosexuals may be the target of prejudice, there just doesn't seem like enough actual "menace" to warrant assault because of this particular ruling.

i hope that's right and wish i believed it to be true.

however, i've noticed that my opinion of Prop 8 was a particularly more intense disgust compared to other ballot measures which were introduced at the same time; i think that was because rather than merely denying an equal protection, Prop 8 actively removed an equal protection for homosexuals.

it's possible that this reversal of the ban, this removal of the bigoted victory might be all that some set of especially cracked minutemen need to gin up a virulently victimized savior complex.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And "overthrowing the will of people" is kind of a buzz topic among those kids lately.

Just imagine the motivational potential of a case where it's true!
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group